I don't know why the issue of State pensions has crept into this question but it needs addressing.
It suits government to lump State pension payments in with "benefits". It is only in recent years they have been termed thus. As I have said many times on here before, there needs to be a clear delineation between state pensions that have been earned by making the required contributions and those that have not (which, in fact, are not pensions at all but retirement age benefits).
The State pension scheme is perfectly sustainable for those who have paid in (and would be more so if the monies paid out bore some relationship to the contributions made instead of everybody who has paid in for sufficient time being paid the same flat rate). “Pensions” that are not sustainable are those paid to people who have made little or no contribution and they actually receive more than those who have paid in the full whack. The true State pension bill (i.e. monies paid to those who have made full contributions) is considerably less that the sums mentioned. Some studies suggest that only about two-thirds of pension payments are made to those who have made sufficient contributions. Then of course all of the “pension credit” payments are made to those who have made insufficient contributions.
I would have loved to have opted out entirely from the State pension scheme, kept the money and invested it myself. By I had no choice and now it is being suggested that the pension contributions I made do not warrant pension payments being made to me because I’m filthy rich. So, confiscate money from some people under the guise of a pension scheme and pay the funds out to somebody else. Sounds like a good scheme and one which would land conventional financial institutions in court.